Chan v. MTY Tiki Ming Enterprises Inc., 2012 HRTO 862

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Chan

Applicant

-and-

MTY Tiki Ming Enterprises Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 1, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 862

Indexed as: Chan v. MTY Tiki Ming Enterprises

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Peter Chan, Applicant ) Self-represented

MTY Tiki Ming ) Mark A. Klaiman, Counsel Enterprises Inc., Respondent )

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the respondent’s request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing.

2On November 8, 2011, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties which informed them that the hearing was scheduled to continue on February 23, 2012. Unfortunately, through inadvertence, the Registrar doubled booked me for February 23, 2012, and the hearing had to be rescheduled.

3The Registrar canvassed the parties for a new hearing date. On February 21, 2012, the respondent’s counsel sent the Registrar an e-mail which stated: “I am available on May 9, June 14 and June 15, 2012.” On the same day, the applicant sent the Registrar an e-mail which stated that he was available on all those dates, but preferred that the hearing be scheduled for May 9, 2012.

4On February 23, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties which informed them that the hearing was scheduled to continue on May 9, 2012. The Notice also informed the parties that the Tribunal would only adjourn or reschedule the hearing in exceptional circumstances because the hearing date was scheduled in consultation with the parties.

5On March 8, 2012, the respondent’s counsel filed a letter which requested that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled because after he informed the respondent that he had received the Notice, he found out that one of the respondent’s key witnesses will be overseas for his son’s wedding from May 4-14, 2012.

6On March 13, 2012, the applicant filed an e-mail which opposed the respondent’s request on the basis that the respondent agreed to attend the hearing on May 9, 2012, and there is no reason why the witness could not fly back to Canada to attend the hearing for one day. According to the applicant, the wedding is being held in Hong Kong and it is therefore possible for the witness to take the 15-24 hour flight back to Canada for the hearing, and then return to Hong Kong.

7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournment states that the Tribunal will only grant adjournment and rescheduling requests in extraordinary circumstances because such requests are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal further explained:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used.

8In the case at hand, it appears that the respondent’s counsel erred by agreeing to the May 9, 2012 hearing date without fully consulting with his client. In addition, the witness who will be out of the country on that date is a key witness, and it would be unfair to the respondent to complete the hearing without hearing his testimony. In my view, these are extraordinary circumstances that justify adjourning and rescheduling the hearing. The respondent should not be denied a fair hearing because of the error of its counsel.

9The applicant’s suggestion that the witness fly to Hong Kong for the wedding, interrupt his 10-day trip to fly back to Canada for the hearing, fly back to Hong Kong for the rest of the wedding, and then fly back to Canada after the wedding is over is not practical.

10The Tribunal directs the parties to communicate with each other, and advise the Registrar by no later than two weeks from the date of this Interim Decision, as to their availability for a rescheduled hearing date. If no communication is received from the parties, the Tribunal may set the hearing date without further consultation with the parties.